 |
| Prints available |
Bonus art for Chapter 13 of Part I of Paper Doll Veronika, which is now posted on Arktoons! You can also read it on my own website. (I recommend my site for PC and Arktoons for mobile.)
I'm really glad to be doing these extra art pieces for each chapter, since I felt like the comic itself didn't have the time to explore the mood of "Forest", especially the creepy side thereof, as much as I would have liked to.
It is Catholic doctrine that God wills the salvation of every human being. This has been bindingly declared in the condemnations of Calvinism (Trent) and Jansenism (Prop. v Jansenii damn.). Therefore, the salvation of each human being must be a possibility.
Therefore, when Ann Barnhardt speculates in her essay "The one about… DO ABORTED BABIES GO TO HEAVEN?" that miscarried babies absolutely all definitely go to the Limbo of the Innocents--technically a part of Hell, but one of natural happiness-- and that miscarriage itself is God intervening in order to effect "the best possible outcome" for them, who would otherwise end in a worse region of Hell, she is wrong. Per the previously cited doctrine, "the best possible outcome" for a person cannot be not being saved.
However, the idea that she is primarily addressing in the
essay: that all unbaptized infants absolutely all definitely go to Heaven, is
indeed an error and a pernicious one. It is a form of presumption. However, when she claims that the logical
conclusion of the idea of guaranteed salvation for the unborn would make
abortion a good deed, that is an error. By her logic, it would then be good to kill infants the moment after they are baptized. Murder is never a good deed even if the victim would be guaranteed Heaven. It was not a good deed for the Roman pagans to kill the early martyrs.
In any case, several years back, the Vatican held a conference on the idea of Limbo and concluded with a declaration that "we may have hope" as regards the final fate of unbaptized infants. This was before the antipapacy of Bergoglio, so while not an ex cathedra teaching, it should not be simply rejected as a matter of course; it came from under the auspices of a valid Pope. Hope. That means not presumption--the idea that they all are guaranteed Heaven; and not despair--the idea that none of them can possibly be given Heaven.
So yes, Barnhardt is right that infants do not deserve the Beatific Vision, and that it cannot be taken as certain that they are given it upon death. However, it must be acknowledged that there must be some possibility for individual infants to be admitted thereunto. If there were no possible hope, it would be imperative to develop surgical baptism, nanobaptism even, which would make for a very cool aspect of a science-fiction story, but it is clear from the Church's practicum through the centuries that this is not an imperative.
And Barnhardt's basis for her speculation that miscarriage is God intervening to prevent a worse outcome than Limbo for these souls: her interpretation of Christ's statement that it would be better for Judas had he not been born, yields some logical conclusions that are seriously faulty.
She takes this statement about Judas as evidence that in other cases, God foresees that a person will damn himself and thus He causes him not to be born, but that He didn't do this in Judas's case because of the necessity of Christ's death. But if Judas is some kind of exception to a rule, God's plan is imperfect.
The truth of the matter is, God's plan is perfect. Yes, He came to die on the Cross and that was necessary. But it didn't absolutely have to be via betrayal by Judas. And even after the betrayal, Judas could have repented and not killed himself. Jesus' statement didn't lock him in. The statement was contingent on Judas's final impenitence even though it preceded it in time. Like the Immaculate Conception of Mary was contingent on the Cross even though it preceded it in time.
If miscarriages are a smiting of the would-be damned, it would be reasonable to conclude that no one who survives unto birth is ultimately damned and that every person dies via smiting while in their best possible spiritual state. This is the logic of "the best outcome" without possibility of salvation for some. It is, frankly, semi-Calvinistic. Not to mention, going by this logic desperately makes one question why God couldn't wait to smite until right after babies are baptized, indeed, why He doesn't do just that in most cases!
Here's the thing. God does not operate so that "the best outcome" overrides our free will. Our free will is of utmost importance to God. He does not circumvent our free will to get us saved, nor does He circumvent the consequences of our actions. Thus the Redemption, atoning for our actions of sin, He allowed to be brought about by free human actions including Judas'. And we should imagine that the eternal destiny of unbaptized infants is, like the eternal destiny of everyone else, determined by free will in response to grace, though we may not be able to tell how.
Here is what the Catholic Encyclopedia of 1910 has to say on the matter:
The most difficult problem concerning this Divine will to save all men, a real crux theologorum lies in the mysterious attitude of God towards children dying without baptism. Did God sincerely and earnestly will the salvation also of the little ones who, without fault of their own, fail to receive the baptism of water or blood and are thus forever deprived of the beatific vision? Only a few theologians (e.g. Bellarmine, Vasquez) are bold enough to answer this question in the negative. Either invincible ignorance, as among the pagans, or the physical order of nature, as in still-births, precludes the possibility of the administration of baptism without the least culpability on the part of the children. The difficulty lies, therefore, in the fact that God, the author of the natural order, eventually declines to remove the existing obstacles by means of a miracle. The well-meant opinion of some theologians (Arrubal, Kilber, Mannens) that the whole and full guilt falls in all instances not on God, but on men (for example, on the imprudence of the mothers), is evidently too airy an hypothesis to be entitled to consideration. The subterfuge of Klee, the writer on dogma, that self-consciousness is awakened for a short time in dying children, to render baptism of desire possible to them, is just as unsatisfactory and objectionable as Cardinal Cajetan's admission, disapproved of by Pius X, that the prayer of Christian parents, acting like a baptism of desire, saves their children for heaven. We are thus confronted with an unsolved mystery. Our ignorance of the manner does not destroy, however, the theological certainty of the fact. For the above-cited Biblical texts are of such unquestionable universality that it is impossible to exclude a priori millions of children from the Divine will to save humankind.
So, Barnhardt's speculation about the solution of this unsolved mystery has clear problems and cannot be admitted.
As the conclusion of this essay, I offer my own speculation. It is only speculation, and should it be proven to be likewise contrary to the logical conclusions of Catholic doctrine, I will readily withdraw it. I cannot fully explain my reasons, since some it of derives from the religious experiences of someone I know that I do not have permission to reveal, but here it is:
I speculate that there is a battle.
For the soul of the child, between angels and fallen angels, which humans can aid.
The aid that can be given is analogous to spiritual influence, such that of parents on surviving children. Kierkegaard was a heretic; no soul is alone. Christ founded a Church and gave us means to aid in each others' salvation. While, as stated in the quote, the idea that parents can give proxy consent for Baptism of Desire has been disapproved (though not anathematized), their intentions do make some kind of difference I am sure.
Other humans, especially the parents, can alternatively aid the fallen side. Sins do damage even to the innocent; think of all the parents presently having their children injected with genetic agents made from aborted babies, one of the reported side-effects of which is lessened function in the parts of the brain that respond to religious experience. And recently, the Satanic Temple issued a ritual for women to recite while procuring an abortion. It is clear the main purpose of it is to ensure the mother's full knowledge and consent and thus mortal guilt, but I fear it may have some dark spiritual effect on the baby as well. However, it is always possible for Divine Light to overcome darkness.
Finally, I note that just as the Church does not order surgical baptisms, She does not forbid the reception of Holy Communion by pregnant woman. It is another matter of mystery how minutely the Eucharistic species can be dissolved while retaining Christ's Substance, but I find it suggestive that a pregnant woman nourishes her unborn child through sharing blood.
St. Colette, pray for us.
St. John the Baptist, pray for us.
Our Lady of Good Remedy, pray for us.
Eucharistic Heart of Jesus, have mercy on us.
 |
| Prints available |
Bonus art for Chapter 12 of Part I of Paper Doll Veronika, which is now posted on Arktoons! You can also read it on my own website. (I recommend my site for PC and Arktoons for mobile.)
I'm working on drawing trees better, particularly giving them enough little branches and twigs.
After languishing for many months, the Paper Doll Club for my webcomic, Paper Doll Veronika, is swinging into action!
It's a way for readers to support the comic--my first goal is cover the web-hosting--and members get many extra bonuses! Most importantly, I just made a way to join that is not through Paypal: Subscribestar! It's like Patreon but fairer with the money and without its active enmity towards Christian morality.
Presently, there's more bonus material on my own website than on the Subscribestar page, but I'm working on getting everything in both places. Here's a list what there is so far:
- Customizable paper dolls, both stationary and movable
- Stationary dolls of Veronika and Stade
- The first set of Veronika's dresses, both stationary and movable
- Opportunity for a character cameo
- Gallery of backgrounds
- Gallery of sketches
And here are some things that are coming soon:
If you'd like to support the comic, please do join!
 |
| Art by Lacey Fairchild |
If you are already familiar with this hierarchy, you can skip the following set of indented paragraphs. The SSH expands on the Alpha-Beta dichotomy developed among pickup artists--referring respectively to: dominant and attractive male behavior, or submissive and unattractive male behavior--rather than just a binary, this hierarchy has six categories.
Alpha: the most attractive and dominant, alphas are ambitious, successful leaders. They are boastful, charismatic, aggressive, and tend to be promiscuous.
Bravo: the right-hand man type who supports an alpha or one in an alpha position. They are loyal and fun.
Delta: a normal, decent sort of man, hard-working and competent. They often are not given the credit they deserve and when it comes to women, they might aim too high and/or be too easily cowed.
Gamma: a man who can't stand to be seen as inferior to anyone despite not having achieved superior status. Deathly afraid of failure or being shown up, he lies to himself and constantly tries to undermine others. Nowadays, often nerdy. Repulsive to women.
Omega: a social reject, reviled and reviling. Withdraws from society as much as possible because it disdains him. Often unkempt and filled with resentment and misery.
Sigma: a man who doesn't care about leading or following, pursues his own ends regardless of what others think of him. Despite not seeking status, is attractive to women.
Many have sought for an equivalent female hierarchy. In response to requests for one, Day has said it should be developed by a woman. The following is an attempt to do so. The difficulty is that the attractiveness of a woman to men is not nearly so dependent on her behavior as is a man's attractiveness to women; being primarily based on her looks.
(A necessary aside: people often protest that the attractiveness described in such analysis is no determiner of how good a spouse a person is. It was never claimed to be. It should be common knowledge that the most attractive people are not always the best mates. Unfortunately there is a mistaken notion that because men's attraction is based more on appearance, women's attraction must be somehow wiser or more based on virtue. It is not. While attraction is important, it should but sadly cannot go without saying that neither sex should select a spouse based on attraction alone without consideration of virtue and other factors.)
Since female attractiveness is so determined by looks, simply ranking women by their beauty is an insufficient tool for categorizing and predicting behavior and mindset. But it is a factor. The interplay of beauty and chastity, or beauty and bitchiness, has been discussed.
This theory is humbly submitted as a possible system for categorization and analysis of female behavior. The author finds it thus useful. Since it is about matters which many are likely to take personally, she anticipates that many readers will not find it harmonious with their own observations or feelings, but such readers should ignore it and formulate their own theories rather than attempt to persuade the author to alter hers. She will not be doing so.
The basis is a dual axis of beauty and niceness, yielding four ranks.
The titles of the four ranks derive from the following cartoon, Teen Girl Squad:
The rest of the series may be found here. It does not explicate this theory, being mainly merely the source of the names, but does accord with it at significant moments.
In this system, Cheerleaders and So-and-Sos are pretty, What's-her-Faces and Ugly Ones are not. So-and-sos and What's-her-Faces are nice, Cheerleaders and Ugly Ones are not. Note that 'nice' means exactly that, compatible with but not the same thing as kind, friendly, charming, or good.
The highest ranking of women, the Cheerleader possesses beauty and knows how to use it. She is good at manipulating people and can be very captivating and very cruel. This is needful for her own sake, since almost everyone she interacts with, male or female, treats her either with special favor or with enmity. She is good at guiding the female herd by encouraging imitation and shaming nonconformity. Many Cheerleaders are vain, selfish, and vindictive, getting whatever they want through flattery, calumny, and detraction, and engaging in flirtation with men pledged to other women. However; they are capable of using their abilities for good ends and many have, especially in past eras when society was more ordered toward the Good. They are highly desirable for high-status men, and a man needs a strong frame to keep them in line. With a low-status man of weak frame, they become discontented and make his and their own lives miserable. They cannot understand the mindset of not-pretty women and often speak as though the attention they receive is something to which all women are accustomed.
Examples: Scarlett O'Hara from Gone with the Wind, Emma Woodhouse from Emma, Amy March from Little Women, Inara Serra from Firefly (albeit imperfectly written by a noted Gamma). Mean Girls is about a group of Cheerleaders, Regina, Gretchen, and Karen, adopting a So-and-So, Cady, as one of their own, her transformation into a Cheerleader and her learning, through failure, to use Cheerleader abilities for harmony rather than discord.
Pretty and nice.
Women who possess beauty, though often not as much as Cheerleaders, or are not as skilled at appearing to their best advantage, but still enough to strike most men as noticeably pretty. They are also nice, meaning generally patient, tolerant, and agreeable towards others. In an orderly group of women they reinforce the guidance of Cheerleaders, with some risk of being sycophantic. They make good relationship prospects for both high-status and low-status men.*
Examples: Melanie Wilkes from Gone with the Wind, Jane Bennett from Pride and Prejudice, Meg March from Little Women; Jane Fairfax from Emma is less characteristically friendly than many So-and-Sos, but her beauty and attainment of an Alpha confirm her status.
Not-pretty and nice.
Woman who lack beauty but are not actively repellent, their plainness makes them effectively invisible to men. They try to be pleasant, but often don't know how to dress well or use makeup and may have poor hygiene and/or be a little overweight. They regard pretty women with bewilderment and can't understand how they capture male attention. Their attempts consist of actions like greeting a man to whom they are attracted and then spending a subsequent time isolated, wallowing in discouraged embarrassment. Ignorant as to how to attract notice, agitated if it occurs, many give up on romance entirely. Possessed of low self-esteem, those who do land a man tend to be insecure, sure that he could do better. This may lead them, on one hand, to try to be especially pleasing and accommodating, or on the other, to succumb to bouts of self-loathing-based emotional drama.
Note that in Teen Girl Squad, What's-her-Face, not the Ugly One, is the one who does not have a date for the prom.
Examples: Luna Lovegood from Harry Potter; Deb from Napoleon Dynamite; Sarah from Labyrinth is written like one but is far too pretty; Marie Melmotte from The Way we Live Now but with situational Cheerleader status due to her father's money.
Women who lack beauty yet make themselves visible to men though positive ugliness and/or obnoxious attitude. Unable to get the male attention through beauty or charm, they get it however they can. Gross obesity, piercings, tattoos, unnaturally-dyed hair, fringe fashion, and/or loud, crude, and/or aggressive demeanor. Some of them, such as the young woman in the above picture, have a face which could possibly be pretty, but have disfigured themselves. They do in fact attain men more than What's-her-Faces do, but said men are often Gammas and the relationships are often unhappy. They despise pretty women with a burning rage, and will undermine and backbite any Cheerleaders and So-and-Sos who possess any kind of leadership role in a group. They lord it over What's-her-Faces, flaunting the attention they do get or deriding What's-her-Faces for not being as assertive, "real," or feminist as they are. What's-her-Faces may become Ugly Ones out of frustration and bitterness.
Examples: Ugly stepsisters from various fairy tales, Mary Bennett from Pride and Prejudice, Hermione Granger from Harry Potter; Janis from Mean Girls.
As final notes, group dynamics, or "pecking order" has been touched upon, but the author believes she cannot fully address it, having little experience thereof. As to courtship strategies, the author is unqualified to give advice, but thinks it likely that one should endeavor to be a So-and-So if one can.
Images in this post are copyright to their respective owners.
* Lest this essay be accused of following the Law of Female Journalism, the author states for the record that she is not a So-and-So.
 |
| Prints available |
Bonus art for Chapter 11 of Part I of Paper Doll Veronika, which is now posted on Arktoons! You can also read it on my own website. (I recommend my site for PC and Arktoons for mobile.)
This is the first of these chapter art pieces to not employ some kind of paper cutting and pasting, instead being all one piece like a regular drawing. I think that enables a more complete cohesiveness, coming through in the lighting. I was inspired by "Accolade" by Edmund Blair Leighton.
